How do Sovereign Citizens PROVE they are born here? [Archive]

palani

20th October 2015, 07:55 PM

Can I take my family bible and claim sovereignty in Australia?

I don't believe the Emperor of North America and Protector of Mexico had these difficulties

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Emperor_Joshua_A._Norton_I.jpg/220px-Emperor_Joshua_A._Norton_I.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

By 1859, Norton had become completely disgruntled with what he considered the inadequacies of the legal and political structures of the United States. On September 17, 1859, he took matters into his own hands and distributed letters to the various newspapers in the city, proclaiming himself "Emperor of these United States":

At the peremptory request and desire of a large majority of the citizens of these United States, I, Joshua Norton, formerly of Algoa Bay, Cape of Good Hope, and now for the last 9 years and 10 months past of S. F., Cal., declare and proclaim myself Emperor of these U. S.; and in virtue of the authority thereby in me vested, do hereby order and direct the representatives of the different States of the Union to assemble in Musical Hall, of this city, on the 1st day of Feb. next, then and there to make such alterations in the existing laws of the Union as may ameliorate the evils under which the country is laboring, and thereby cause confidence to exist, both at home and abroad, in our stability and integrity.
— NORTON I, Emperor of the United States.[18][27]

Glass

20th October 2015, 07:57 PM

The whole of everything is a play on words. That is why most do not get it. The main thing is that many people are very literal. Some people on here come to mind. They have an inability to think in any way other than literal.

English is a language based on the use of various letters in a range of combinations and assigning a meaning to that arrangement of letters.

Legalese is a language based on the use of various letters in a range of combinations and assigning a legal meaning to that arrangement of letters.

Although the two languages may shared words that have the same arrangement and combination of letters, they do not share the same meaning. Hence they are different languages, even though they look like they are the same.

Lets try Registration. There are a number of different things people say about registration. What it means. Some people use a play on letters to convey a meaning that may be right and it may be wrong. I don't know.

My comprehension of registration is that it conveys an interest in the "thing" registered to the registrant. So if you register a car, you convey an interest in the car to the registrant. If you breach some conditions of use of the car, the registrant can come and take it from you. This is part of the contract that accompanies registration.

Children are registered. Hence the same applies to them.

Regis-tration. Some people have said that the Regis part refers to the King or the Regis. And that you are giving the King a claim on your property including your children. I don't know if that is the entomology of the word but it sounds reasonable. The act of registration definitely gives the registrant a claim on the thing registered - the Rem.

Glass

20th October 2015, 08:00 PM

Recording versus Registering.

Prior to the advent of the Act of Registration. Not sure when introduced in the the US but I assume between 1933 and 1946 just as it was in Australia.

Prior to that time a Family "recorded" things. They did not register things.

The Bible was where family Births Deaths and Marriages were recorded. Other things were Recorded at the Country Recorders Office. Anyone hear of that? The County Recorders Office. It was not the Country Registration Office. Although several different Registration Offices have been introduced since the 1930/40 era.

Palani has posted all many of examples of "recording" things but has been ridiculed for doing so. As if, because it's old school it doesn't have any bearing today or at any time in the past, when the fact is, that is how it was done and still is done.... in some situations... and often by higher ups that we call the elite.

By rights you can still use a bible in this fashion but you are indeed going to have some issues explaining to a police man. A Judge should get it once explained. Obligations for registration are part of statutes and I think the chances of remaining unregistered are pretty slim. Still. You might choose to ignore that system where appropriate.

I know of a family in Australia who did this. No child registration, home schooling. Was vilified in the News media but eventually they got bored with the story and left the family alone.

It comes down to deciding how to live your life and sticking to that path.

Cebu_4_2

20th October 2015, 08:55 PM

I need to see #6

Cebu_4_2

20th October 2015, 08:58 PM

Okay #6 is:

I am challenging you to THINK. You have not addressed even one point I've made in this thread.

School me. What am I missing here. Diversion personal attacks don't mean shit to me.

Answer my questions straight up, or shut the fuck up.

Yet there are no points made above this... was something deleted?

Neuro

20th October 2015, 11:39 PM

So, what do you do with a guy with absolutely NO proof of sovereignty or citizenship? If he's a white guy, he's a-ok? He looks mexican, deport his ass?

Every illegal alien refugee prick could just say they are sovereign here.
If he looks able to defend himself against any that would attempt to make him a citizen. I would assume he is a sovereign and let him be. As long as the guy doesn't try to impinge on my rights I wouldn't do anything, no matter what he claims he is or what proof of claim he has.

I can see you are still suffering from the hive-mind of having been a police... ;)

7th trump

21st October 2015, 04:21 AM

Isn't that the point? My 'here' is not your 'here'. Not being judgmental but facts are facts.

How do I prove anything? Legal notice. Then laches and estoppel come into play. But then I have no claim to be either sovereign or citizen. Sovereigns solve their problems by resorting to battel (as in wager of battel) while my favorite weapon is words.

Facts huh?
Didnt you call facts "evil" and basically said they have no bearing on anything?
Yep thats what I recall you said.

Now you are saying your favorite weapon is "words"....I disagree....your favorite weapons are lies, twisting the truth and conspiracies.

Estoppel does't work and never have when you are a US citizen...the same US citizen that are federal personnel (see 5usc 552a (13)) you're trying to stop.

(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Thats you palani and anyone else who receives Ss benefits or is currently contributing into it that socialist program.

palani

21st October 2015, 04:45 AM

Didnt you call facts "evil"
Aren't facts still things even if they happen to have a connection to 'things evil"? The reason facts were classed 'evil' was because in the original system the only reason to haul you to court were evil deeds. That is still the case today. The power elite has no reason to examine things that were not evil.

Then too things may be divided into 'de facto' and 'de jure'. De facto things just happen. De jure things happen according to the law. I'll let you consider what action makes these two classifications different but I doubt if you will happen upon the solution.

and basically said they have no bearing on anything?
You suddenly jump to this 'basically' solution as if you had the ability to reason. You don't have this ability and never will.

your favorite weapons are lies, twisting the truth and conspiracies.
In the process of communications my words pass through your conscious and get distorted to these things. You might examine the communications medium or your own mind. I suspect the latter is defective.

Estoppel does't work and never have when you are a US citizen...the same US citizen that are federal personnel (see 5usc 552a (13)) you're trying to stop. Most everything in law works really well. Sometimes things work well yet people in power twist things so they still remain in their illusion of power. You classify this as 'not working' rather than a trespass. Your bad.

Thats you and anyone else who receives Ss benefits or is currently contributing into it that socialist program. I have applied for no federal retirement benefit. Not even a state retirement benefit. Caught you in another distortion.

7th trump

21st October 2015, 05:49 AM

Aren't facts still things even if they happen to have a connection to 'things evil"? The reason facts were classed 'evil' was because in the original system the only reason to haul you to court were evil deeds. That is still the case today. The power elite has no reason to examine things that were not evil.

Then too things may be divided into 'de facto' and 'de jure'. De facto things just happen. De jure things happen according to the law. I'll let you consider what action makes these two classifications different but I doubt if you will happen upon the solution.

You suddenly jump to this 'basically' solution as if you had the ability to reason. You don't have this ability and never will.

In the process of communications my words pass through your conscious and get distorted to these things. You might examine the communications medium or your own mind. I suspect the latter is defective.
Most everything in law works really well. Sometimes things work well yet people in power twist things so they still remain in their illusion of power. You classify this as 'not working' rather than a trespass. Your bad.
I have applied for no federal retirement benefit. Not even a state retirement benefit. Caught you in another distortion.
You're doing nothing but back peddling here Palani.

You have a ssn and its active whether or not you apply for benefits. You are covered under social security regardless. Did you not see that I wrote currently contributing into the system?
And you don't have to be contributing into it to be active nor receiving the benefits. You are covered regardless if you apply for the benefits or not. People get benefits all the time who haven't contributed one cent into the system..............that includes every US citizen or qualified individual.
Your a fool palani!

7th trump

21st October 2015, 05:52 AM

So, what do you do with a guy with absolutely NO proof of sovereignty or citizenship? If he's a white guy, he's a-ok? He looks mexican, deport his ass?

Every illegal alien refugee prick could just say they are sovereign here.

Hitch
The illegals are more sovereign that US citizens on the basis that they aren't "US citizens"...that's why they get deported rather than arrested on petty crimes. An illegal murdering a US citizen is a different thing....they then are arrested and sent to trial.

palani

21st October 2015, 05:59 AM

You have a ssn
You might look where you will but never find a ssn in my name. And if you did then it would belong to someone else (aka .. I don't have exclusive copyright privileges to the name and someone else might have been given the same exact set of symbols .. and that is not me).

palani

21st October 2015, 06:13 AM

How do Sovereign Citizens PROVE they are born here?

Here. Interesting concept. Where is here?

The Supreme Court first used the concept of a ‘plane’ in Ponzi v. Fessenden :: 258 US 254 (1922) to describe the dissimilarity between the state and the federal planes. The federal plane (as established by the U.S. constitution) is entirely a commercial plane. That was the change that made their union ‘more perfect’ (the ability to borrow money is nothing if not commercial).

"Here" is a man-made plane. This plane has several attributes. First, it is commercial in nature. Money has evolved to a private corporate coupon called a Federal Reserve Note. Second, it is bankrupt. It prints all these corporate coupons and expects a return of enough of them to keep the system working. Instead it cannot come up with a budget and it operates from what it calls a deficit. In this plane anyone using benefits (carrying corporate coupons) are presumed to be dead ... no rights ... not sovereign. Has nothing to do with social security. That is a symptom only.

7th trump

21st October 2015, 07:24 AM

Here. Interesting concept. Where is here?

The Supreme Court first used the concept of a ‘plane’ in Ponzi v. Fessenden :: 258 US 254 (1922) to describe the dissimilarity between the state and the federal planes. The federal plane (as established by the U.S. constitution) is entirely a commercial plane. That was the change that made their union ‘more perfect’ (the ability to borrow money is nothing if not commercial).

"Here" is a man-made plane. This plane has several attributes. First, it is commercial in nature. Money has evolved to a private corporate coupon called a Federal Reserve Note. Second, it is bankrupt. It prints all these corporate coupons and expects a return of enough of them to keep the system working. Instead it cannot come up with a budget and it operates from what it calls a deficit. In this plane anyone using benefits (carrying corporate coupons) are presumed to be dead ... no rights ... not sovereign. Has nothing to do with social security. That is a symptom only.
There is so many wrongs and misconceptions in this post about taxation and money.
But I suppose this is what happens when individuals who think in the realm of conspiracy will post when they are ignorant of taxation and money....mainly frns and lawful money.

You are taxed and deducted from your pay check because you earn 26usc 3121(a) "wages which this definition is included in the definition of 26usc 3401(a) "wages" (federal imposition)....."lawful money" and "frn's" as palani implies has nothing at all to do with sovereignty.
Frn's came into existence in 1913 and the federal income tax was first imposed in 1862......and according to historical 1040 data the majority of the US population didn't file any 1040's until 1940 which was one year after social security found its way into Title 26 in 1939 (federal revenue title). In 1939 there was roughly 7 million filed 1040's but in 1940 that number doubled to 14 million filed 1040 and hasn't stopped climbing at rocket speed.

So if I were any of you people I wouldn't take palanis word on anything because
1. He has not fully investigated the tax laws to understand them.
2. and by doing so doesn't have an accurate assessment of how things other laws work or interact to assess an accurate conclusion.

Hitch

21st October 2015, 08:21 AM

If he looks able to defend himself against any that would attempt to make him a citizen. I would assume he is a sovereign and let him be. As long as the guy doesn't try to impinge on my rights I wouldn't do anything, no matter what he claims he is or what proof of claim he has.

I can see you are still suffering from the hive-mind of having been a police... ;)

Neuro, your answer here actually makes the most sense to me. However, the hive mind of the police is there for a reason. Your actions are their liability.

For example, I will use Palani in this example. Say a cop pulls over Palani. Palani has no driver's license, no insurance, etc. He claims he's a sovereign citizen and isn't harming anyone, isn't infringing on anyone's rights, and wants to be free to go about his business. Cop says, fine go right ahead.

Anything Palani does after that encounter, the cop can be held liable for it. Palani robs a store and hurts someone, they will blame that cop for not stopping it from happening (when he legally could have stopped it).

That's the problem with LE. Cops are not free to make the best decisions. The system blames them for everything that happens, or could happen.

Neuro

21st October 2015, 08:32 AM

Neuro, your answer here actually makes the most sense to me. However, the hive mind of the police is there for a reason. Your actions are their liability.

For example, I will use Palani in this example. Say a cop pulls over Palani. Palani has no driver's license, no insurance, etc. He claims he's a sovereign citizen and isn't harming anyone, isn't infringing on anyone's rights, and wants to be free to go about his business. Cop says, fine go right ahead.

Anything Palani does after that encounter, the cop can be held liable for it. Palani robs a store and hurts someone, they will blame that cop for not stopping it from happening (when he legally could have stopped it).

That's the problem with LE. Cops are not free to make the best decisions. The system blames them for everything that happens, or could happen.
Sure they are serving the beast, they have no option to think logically, you on the other hand does! Free your mind!

Hitch

21st October 2015, 08:37 AM

Sure they are serving the beast, they have no option to think logically, you on the other hand does! Free your mind!

Trying to understand sovereign citizens, I thought, is trying to free my mind. Seems it's all a bunch of theory, nothing practical, however. BTW, I don't want anything to do with LE actually. But, by having a driver's license and insurance, etc, they have no reason to bother me. I'd rather just blend in for now. When the whole system collapses, things will change anyway.

mick silver

21st October 2015, 09:12 AM

http://www.thedailybell.com/images/library/debate7.jpg (http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36598/The-Big-Budget-Debate-and-a-Personal-Solution/)

7th trump

21st October 2015, 09:20 AM

Neuro, your answer here actually makes the most sense to me. However, the hive mind of the police is there for a reason. Your actions are their liability.

For example, I will use Palani in this example. Say a cop pulls over Palani. Palani has no driver's license, no insurance, etc. He claims he's a sovereign citizen and isn't harming anyone, isn't infringing on anyone's rights, and wants to be free to go about his business. Cop says, fine go right ahead.

Anything Palani does after that encounter, the cop can be held liable for it. Palani robs a store and hurts someone, they will blame that cop for not stopping it from happening (when he legally could have stopped it).

That's the problem with LE. Cops are not free to make the best decisions. The system blames them for everything that happens, or could happen.

This is the best post addressing sovereign citizens and law together Hitch.

7th trump

21st October 2015, 10:31 AM

Hitch....what makes you believe that you have to be born here to be a sovereign?

There were many who came from Europe in the 1700, 1800 and early 1900's that weren't born here but yet were considered ..."The People".
The only restriction is those who not are born here could not become the President of the US of A.

How do you consider an individual a sovereign?

Glass

21st October 2015, 11:19 AM

Trying to understand sovereign citizens, I thought, is trying to free my mind. Seems it's all a bunch of theory, nothing practical, however. BTW, I don't want anything to do with LE actually. But, by having a driver's license and insurance, etc, they have no reason to bother me. I'd rather just blend in for now. When the whole system collapses, things will change anyway.

The system may not collapse outright. It may just be more of the same. The slow boil in to austerity.

I think there is a problem with the term Sovereign Citizen. Its not a real thing and it's a term created by government. It's an oxymoron. You really cannot be a Sovereign Citizen. If you claim citizenship you subvert your sovereignty.

Sovereignty is the highest power under God.

US Constitution states "We the people". Sovereigns = the people. Highest power in the land.

What we really should be talking about is the difference between being a Man/Woman or being a citizen/person. Sovereigns are flesh and blood living. Citizens/persons are a franchise. Unreal, dead.

The law is old. It has been with us a long time. There are many maxims of law. These are unquestionable. They are doctrine.

First in time Best in Law. When it comes to laws and the principles of laws the oldies are still goodies. And that applies to process of law as well. They are there to invoke if you so choose. The government is using these things against you. But they are subject to them as well.

The task is to make them subject.

mick silver

21st October 2015, 12:50 PM

http://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2014/04/citizenship-test-redux.png?alias=cinema_288x154

palani

21st October 2015, 03:06 PM

if I were any of you people I wouldn't take palanis word on anything because
1. He has not fully investigated the tax laws to understand them.
2. and by doing so doesn't have an accurate assessment of how things other laws work or interact to assess an accurate conclusion.
7th trump fails to realize in his post the relationship between currency and law. A contract in law requires substance. There is none with a FRN. A FRN is an IOU. No substance. No contract. And that is why contracts were re-stated in the 1930s. Without contract there is no law as it existed prior to this re-statement. Without substance there is no law. The root cause of all problems with government can be traced to currency. Take it from there.

What is the law of a bankrupt? To be irresponsible. How do you become bankrupt? Use IOUs. Q.E.D.

palani

21st October 2015, 03:13 PM

Anything Palani does after that encounter, the cop can be held liable for it.
Anyone is responsible for his own acts and the acts of nobody else.

An acquaintance was arrested on a warrant on the front steps of his church on Sunday morning by a deputy. This is strictly and explicitly forbidden in law yet the deputy was not responsible for this illegal act. A sheriff once informed another fellow I know that he didn't have to arrest someone even if he witnessed a criminal act directly.

You better get your head together Hitch. A cop is responsible for cashing his paycheck and little else. They have no duty to protect me, you or society in general. As a rule they are as worthless as tits on a boar. When seconds count cops are generally minutes away.

7th trump

21st October 2015, 03:33 PM

7th trump fails to realize in his post the relationship between currency and law. A contract in law requires substance. There is none with a FRN. A FRN is an IOU. No substance. No contract. And that is why contracts were re-stated in the 1930s. Without contract there is no law as it existed prior to this re-statement. Without substance there is no law. The root cause of all problems with government can be traced to currency. Take it from there.

What is the law of a bankrupt? To be irresponsible. How do you become bankrupt? Use IOUs. Q.E.D.

Thats funny....a treasury note is an IOU also.....its just paper.
Secondly I have traced the tax imposition, thats deducted from your pay check, to 3121(a) "wages" which is participating in Social Security.
Palani hasnt done any research at all in this field and just regurgitates what he reads from the internets.
The IRS history shows that the influx of filed 1040's is directly linked to participating in Social Security....in fact you cannot file a 1040 without a ssn or having earned "wages".

Ask Palani to do a step by step analysis of what causes the imposition on your paycheck to where those deductions and withholdings go.
He cant do this and never has even brought this to this sites attention because he has never done the research but wants you to take his word for it.

palani

21st October 2015, 04:09 PM

wants you to take his word for it.

I sincerely desire each man, woman and child do his/her own due diligence. Your due diligence terminated as soon as you though "I want" or "I would like". Then it was as if you turned a switch off and stopped thinking. But then that doesn't concern me as much as you pretending you know more than a method to pull wire through conduit.

7th trump

21st October 2015, 04:44 PM

I sincerely desire each man, woman and child do his/her own due diligence. Your due diligence terminated as soon as you though "I want" or "I would like". Then it was as if you turned a switch off and stopped thinking. But then that doesn't concern me as much as you pretending you know more than a method to pull wire through conduit.

Hahahaha.....now we know palani has lost.

I already knew he wouldnt show any one of the members of this forum how taxation works....he hasnt a clue nor does he care to know to tell anyone on this site.
Its just the same ole same ole conspiracy bullshit having no meat or substance...then he'll tell you its his perception of reality that we all know doesnt comply on how things work outside his reality in the real world.

Glass

21st October 2015, 04:49 PM

Hahahaha.....now we know palani has lost.

I already knew he wouldnt show any one of the members of this forum how taxation works....he hasnt a clue nor does he care to know to tell anyone on this site.
Its just the same ole same ole conspiracy bullshit having no meat or substance...then he'll tell you its his perception of reality that we all know doesnt comply on how things work outside his reality in the real world.

You don't have anything to contribute to the OP. Please stop trolling this thread and all the other threads where we try and discuss these concepts.

osoab

21st October 2015, 05:11 PM

Raising your hand and saying "I'm a sovereign citizen" isn't good enough for me.

Put me back on patrol and you all would be deported. You looked "mexican" to me. No proof of shit. I'm not taking any chances....south you go.

Where you getting this "sovereign citizen" crap from solid?

7th trump

21st October 2015, 07:24 PM

You don't have anything to contribute to the OP. Please stop trolling this thread and all the other threads where we try and discuss these concepts.

The pot calling the kettle black.....nice!

Glass

21st October 2015, 07:30 PM

The pot calling the kettle black.....nice!

having maintained a benefit of the doubt position regarding you for some time, and not wanting to create antagonism, I have to conclude you are suffering from comprehension problems and maybe an unchristian like oversized ego.

How you could contend I troll threads on sovereignty is beyond me. But never mind. Pursing that would simply further the diversion of this thread from its OP.

Hitch

21st October 2015, 08:10 PM

You better get your head together Hitch. A cop is responsible for cashing his paycheck and little else. They have no duty to protect me, you or society in general. As a rule they are as worthless as tits on a boar. When seconds count cops are generally minutes away.

The number of lawsuits and false claims against LE would prove, that society disagrees with you. You even said yourself, when seconds count that cops are minutes away....hinting that it's their fault they can't be there to help. Blame the cop that wasn't even there, lol.

If a cop pulls over a drunk driver, he's at fault if he lets that driver go, and the driver runs over someone. Somehow we've evolved into a society where cops use to protect and serve, now they are covering their own asses first and foremost. Like walking on eggshells, they have to be very careful on what actions they take.

Hitch

21st October 2015, 08:13 PM

Where you getting this "sovereign citizen" crap from solid?

Just trying to learn how it all fits together. Folks were calling them sovereign citizen's from day 1 on this forum. It seems there's a lot of theory but nothing that's really applicable to real life.

EE_

21st October 2015, 08:37 PM

I'm sure everyone here knows this already...

SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public
JANUARY 28 2013BY DAN CANNON

People who don’t understand taking responsibility for your own safety often ask me why I wouldn’t just call the police to stop a crime instead of drawing a gun. Well for one, a great police response time would be 1-2 minutes, but most crimes take place in a matter of seconds. Two, police have no duty to protect me, or you.

Based on the headline of this article you might think this is an important new ruling, but it’s not. The court has kept this stance for over 30 years.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country.

It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.
We are on our own for protection.

While we are quite sure most police officers will help someone in need when required, just remember the next time you feel you might need protection that police officers have no duty to provide that to you.

Sources:
– Warren v. District of Columbia
– Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (NY Times)
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/

Glass

21st October 2015, 08:48 PM

There isn't really a whole lot to it.

Government use a 3 step process to relieve you of your money. You giving them money is "Their" remedy to 'Their" Claim. The money is called "CONSIDERATION". Consideration can be almost anything but usually it is money. It could be "Specific Performance' such as file a tax return or go to gaol.

The 3 steps are: Make a claim. Demand remedy. Default if no remedy is forthcoming.

How it works.
1) Think up a claim and formulate the reasons for the claim. The existence of some FACTS for instance - you exceeded the speed limit.
2) Issue a Notice of Claim. Include the specifics of the claim and include the FACTS which give rise to the claim. Include the REMEDY which is to pay money by a given date.
3) Wait for Remedy(until the payment is received, the specific performance is performed or nothing has occurred).
4) Enforce remedy if none forthcoming from the claimee - the claimee has Defaulted and is in Commercial Dishonor.

Enforcement of remedy maybe confiscation of valuable property, enforcement of specific performance or some other thing.

All crimes are considered commercial in nature now. 27 CFR 72.11 appears to state that:

Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses
against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery;
illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring,
pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion;
swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or
compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of
marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

A speeding ticket is not a criminal matter. It has no victim. It is a commercial "crime" and as a result is negotiable. It is a Claim based on some of those palani FACTS.

If you comprehend the notice of claim method - used worldwide now, then you can start to try and negotiate outcomes that are more suitable for your needs.

All negotiations are difficult and often times tense. The system does not realise yet that people are waking up to the method and this is what causes the reactions along the lines of Sovereign Citizen rubbish - remember, no such thing as a sovereign citizen. I've said it at least once in each thread.

Government get its authority from the people but the people have been convinced this is not the case. The hard part is turning this around.

Think about it this way, if a Corporation sends out pieces of paper and people send back money, why wouldn't you keep sending out pieces of paper? It's a great business model, but it's a fraud that people let slide. So they keep doing it. Why not. Nothing to stop them.

If everyone contested their speeding tickets or parking tickets then they would have to rethink what they are doing. They only do something because its easy money. Make it either no money or a loss to them and it becomes a problem for them.

Its possible, I think to make changes as a group or a movement. People supporting other people by showing up for their court hearings. Gathering information and examples and sharing them. Unfortunately it's easy to fracture groups with doubt, innuendo or outright lies. This is the Governments par excellence.

We now have several groups down here in Australia, dealing with Constitutional issues, unlawful fines - because down here all fines, forfeitures, garnishments etc are illegal and void before a court conviction. So the issuing of speeding fines without a court order is a direct breach of law here.

There are also so many other holes in the laws, regulations and procedures that you can negotiate your way out of just about any fine. If you don't know who you are, you are going to go along with their BS and get screwed into the bargain.

osoab

22nd October 2015, 02:25 AM

Just trying to learn how it all fits together. Folks were calling them sovereign citizen's from day 1 on this forum. It seems there's a lot of theory but nothing that's really applicable to real life.

I do not recall anyone labeling themselves a "sovereign citizen". Others (morons) may have attempted to apply that label.

palani

22nd October 2015, 04:17 AM

The number of lawsuits and false claims against LE would prove, that society disagrees with you.
Here is the deal with lawsuits. Anyone can be sued at any time and for any reason whatsoever. Cops are more prone to be sued because they are out front prominently, because they are professional (commercial) and earn their living by imposing their attitude and view on society and because they have few good examples to pattern their behavior from. From close association with really bad criminals they develop similar methods over time (distorted view of what is acceptable behavior). In addition society picks low-IQ and under performers to fill these positions.

Sorry if the above paragraph paints a mostly negative picture. I expect there are points to be made on the positive side as well. I read occasionally of a cop who has overcome his situation and acts nobly.

palani

22nd October 2015, 04:23 AM

when seconds count that cops are minutes away....hinting that it's their fault they can't be there to help. Blame the cop that wasn't even there

No blame intended at all. Just stated a fact along the lines that if I ever got into a situation I am the only one responsible for getting myself out of that situation. Just like 7th trump making statements that 'palani never answers questions' the cop is not responsible for doing something or not doing something when he has no obligation or duty. There is no liability if there is no contract.

7th trump

22nd October 2015, 05:34 AM

having maintained a benefit of the doubt position regarding you for some time, and not wanting to create antagonism, I have to conclude you are suffering from comprehension problems and maybe an unchristian like oversized ego.

How you could contend I troll threads on sovereignty is beyond me. But never mind. Pursing that would simply further the diversion of this thread from its OP.

The point was which you failed to see was you replied to a post that had nothing at all to do with the OP. Yeah my post may not be related to the Op directly but I'm at least addressing an issue related to the OP that a certain moron commented on that I'm trying to get a clearer answer to.

Yeah you the kettle calling the pot black.

7th trump

22nd October 2015, 05:37 AM

No blame intended at all. Just stated a fact along the lines that if I ever got into a situation I am the only one responsible for getting myself out of that situation. Just like 7th trump making statements that 'palani never answers questions' the cop is not responsible for doing something or not doing something when he has no obligation or duty. There is no liability if there is no contract.

You know exactly what I'm talking about because many people here have called you out on the same thing I continually call you out on, so don't act like your innocent .
Most here stopped reading your bullshit after they realized your just pulling shit out of your ass.........they want answers and you fail them. Time and time again you fail them.

palani

22nd October 2015, 10:06 AM

they want answers and you fail them.
If anyone here wants an answer shouldn't they provide a question first? And why would you believe that any answer I might provide relates to anyone other than myself? Have I ever proclaimed that my responses are universal? To me you are an alien and to me you are an alien. We have nothing in common.

7th trump

22nd October 2015, 10:34 AM

If anyone here wants an answer shouldn't they provide a question first? And why would you believe that any answer I might provide relates to anyone other than myself? Have I ever proclaimed that my responses are universal? To me you are an alien and to me you are an alien. We have nothing in common.

Another side step maneuver Palani is known for to avoid any creditability ....hahahaha!

Why not just shoot yourself in the foot Palani?

palani

22nd October 2015, 11:55 AM

Why not just shoot yourself in the foot Palani?
Here is another answer to one of your questions: Because I am not as foolish as you.

7th trump

22nd October 2015, 12:24 PM

Here is another answer to one of your questions: Because I am not as foolish as you.

It would be easier to shoot yourself in the foot than intellectually shooting yourself in the head which you do continually.

steel_ag

22nd October 2015, 04:37 PM

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSSB56LLN0s

Cebu_4_2

22nd October 2015, 04:44 PM

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSSB56LLN0s

My goodness!

Glass

22nd October 2015, 11:09 PM

The point was which you failed to see was you replied to a post that had nothing at all to do with the OP. Yeah my post may not be related to the Op directly but I'm at least addressing an issue related to the OP that a certain moron commented on that I'm trying to get a clearer answer to.

Yeah you the kettle calling the pot black.

Ok. So all doubt removed then.

Glass

9th November 2015, 10:29 PM

Saw this a few days ago. Took awhile to get around to posting it.

Murrumu Walubara Yidindji renounces citizenship to reclaim Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/k/o/q/3/d/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gkok6g.png/1446502242382.jpg
A small Aboriginal tribal group that has established its own government and renounced legal ties with Australia aims to make history by entering into the first Indigenous treaty with the Commonwealth.

The Sovereign Yidindji Government, whose lands stretch south of Port Douglas, through Cairns, inland across the Atherton Tablelands and 80km out to sea, says it wants to help Australia overcome the legal conundrum of operating on Yidindji territory without consent.

Murrumu Walubara Yidindji, the foreign affairs minister, said his government was similar to the Vatican City State – with its own laws, language and institutions.
To the Yidindji people, Australia is a "foreign entity".

"The Commonwealth of Australia does not have consent or a treaty to enter Yidindji territory, so we had to show the leadership to create our own institutions of government," Murrumu told Fairfax Media on a visit to Sydney.

"It doesn't have any validity in law."

Formerly a journalist known as Jeremy Geia, Murrumu has renounced his Australian citizenship, relinquished his passport and bank accounts, and eschews Australian currency.

"Australia, we can see the injury you've got," he said.

"We can cure it and we're not going to send you a bill for it. It's a hearts and minds game and all we're saying is we have our own jurisdiction."

On Sunday, he sent his condolences as Yidindji foreign affairs minister to the people of Russia after an horrific plane crash in which all 224 passengers on board perished.

"Today I conveyed our condolences to Russian Foreign Ministry agents & our thoughts and prayers to loved ones of the crash victims #7K9268", Murrumu Walubara Yidindji tweeted on Sunday.

Link to SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/murrumu-walubara-yidindji-renounces-citizenship-to-reclaim-australia-20151102-gkok6g.html)